KOMPA! MAGAZINE

[D K Bess]

It only took the jury a few hours to deliberate and weigh all the evidence. Jammie Thomas was originally sued for $222,000, but her new fine is now $1.92 Million. Some are already wondering whether or not such a fine is even constitutional.
The Jammie Thomas trial took a shocking turn for the worse. During the short re-trial, a jury found Jammie Thomas liable for wilful copyright infringement for sharing 24 songs and fined her $1.92 Million. This latest verdict is fresh blow to file-sharers within the United States.

Jammie Thomas-Rasset now owes the RIAA $1.92 million.

For more...
http://www.zeropaid.com/news/86457/jammie-thomas-fined-1-92-million-for-sharing-24-songs/
_________________
APPACHE jiskozo
TOUT SAK TÉ KANPÉ SOU WOUT YO... YO PAT POU NOU...

[Haitianone]

RIAA is lost it mind for sure and desperate, I do realize this is a problem but to sue average people for 1.92 Million. To be fair, constitutionally in my view I think it will stand that test but was the fine fair and resonable is another story.
_________________
Statehood or Bust

[kompamagazine]

Thanks DK BESS

Very interesting.....WOW...

KM FILE SHARERS yo....NOU SISPEK

KM!
_________________
phpbb:echo dicks;

[Gromosso]

Thank God I always reject the Studio Files.
_________________
Bat Chyen An Tan'n Met Li

[PIYO]

I was reading that story on Yahoo this morning. The interesting thing is the interpretation of the word "Distribution". They can't really prove someone downloaded the song she uploaded or made available. Now let's say they can prove someone or 1 million people actually did download the songs she made available, does that still mean she is guilty for just making the songs available. Limewire, bearshare or any p2p shearing are just platforms.

Back on campus some kid did set up a p2p shearing network that was available only during school session. I have very limited knowledge on Computer Networking or Programming but if any 2nd or 3rd year college student can set up one of these platforms, how can thoses record company really control problem.

Now to our KM lawyers, how can "making a track available" be a copyright violation???
_________________
Haitian... Why Not!!!

[PhizUniq]

Mwen menm, YO PAP PRAN M' VRE!!!!!!!!!!!!

I have my tricks!
_________________
Yo di djaz sa frekan... Se pa fòt nou. Nou just RESAN!

Last edited by PhizUniq on Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:42 am; edited 1 time in total

[Sanrick]

Interesting!

Phiz, ou ka aide'm avant yo vin deye'm?
_________________
_______________________________________
“Cultural change is hard, but cultures do change after major traumas.” Samuel P. Huntington

[Haitianone]

PIYO wrote:

I was reading that story on Yahoo this morning. The interesting thing is the interpretation of the word "Distribution". They can't really prove someone downloaded the song she uploaded or made available. Now let's say they can prove someone or 1 million people actually did download the songs she made available, does that still mean she is guilty for just making the songs available. Limewire, bearshare or any p2p shearing are just platforms. Back on campus some kid did set up a p2p shearing network that was available only during school session. I have very limited knowledge on Computer Networking or Programming but if any 2nd or 3rd year college student can set up one of these platforms, how can thoses record company really control problem. Now to our KM lawyers, how can "making a track available" be a copyright violation???

Well if you are giving it away it is making available but you raised a valid point there has been for year confusion on the term distribution and given this Supreme Court maybe they should take a shot there to see what it means to them.
_________________
Statehood or Bust

[tibobdenazareth]

PIYO wrote:

Now to our KM lawyers, how can "making a track available" be a copyright violation???

I am not a lawyer but just a KMian.

A jury can judge either on the actual loss or the INTENT when an infringement occurs ... as long as an infringement occurs.

For example, let's say a bank security guard is involved in a robbing plot with his cronies and leaves the door to the coffers open all night for his friends to come get the $$$. Then the FBI who knows about the plot arrest all the guys before they even make it to the bank.

Result: not even $1 was stolen. But do you think that security guard and those guys will be found innocent? And the extent of the financial verdict will somehow depend on whether that bank had $2 million vs $10 billion in AVAILABLE cash.

The fact that the woman MADE SHARING THE TRACKS AVAILABLE TO MILLIONS ... it's like that security guard (in my illustration) who made the bank reserves available to be robbed.
_________________
Je suis le commun des diffférences.

[PIYO]

Haitianone wrote:

PIYO wrote: I was reading that story on Yahoo this morning. The interesting thing is the interpretation of the word "Distribution". They can't really prove someone downloaded the song she uploaded or made available. Now let's say they can prove someone or 1 million people actually did download the songs she made available, does that still mean she is guilty for just making the songs available. Limewire, bearshare or any p2p shearing are just platforms. Back on campus some kid did set up a p2p shearing network that was available only during school session. I have very limited knowledge on Computer Networking or Programming but if any 2nd or 3rd year college student can set up one of these platforms, how can thoses record company really control problem. Now to our KM lawyers, how can "making a track available" be a copyright violation??? Well if you are giving it away it is making available but you raised a valid point there has been for year confusion on the term distribution and given this Supreme Court maybe they should take a shot there to see what it means to them.

H1 fe respe'w stop twisting the words. They can go on and on with it; I can make it available, but it does not mean I am giving it away

With all the tools out there nowadays, it goes behond p2p sharing network. One can now upload or record a track that's is streaming on a website. Someone can actually rip the whole KM Jukebox if he wants to. Now by Pat putting on that option Available on KM for us to enjoy, does that mean Pat is at fault??? I don't think so.

ps: PetitBob I am returning that same post to your reply. Pale avem
_________________
Haitian... Why Not!!!

Last edited by PIYO on Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:04 am; edited 1 time in total